Writ Petition Dismissed as Disputed Factual Allegations

Writ Petition Dismissed as Disputed Factual Allegations of Non-Service Must Be Resolved via Statutory Appeal

Issue

Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge an ex parte adjudication order on grounds of non-service and breach of natural justice when a statutory appeal remedy is available and the facts surrounding service are heavily disputed.

Facts

Adjudication: An order was passed against the assessee under Section 73(9) of the JGST Act.
Assessee’s Contention: The petitioner challenged the order as ex parte, alleging that the pre-show cause notice (ASMT-10) and the show cause notice (DRC-01) were never served and that no personal hearing was granted under Section 75(4).
Knowledge of Order: The petitioner claimed knowledge of the proceedings only upon receiving a later reminder, after which they applied for copies of the orders.
Revenue’s Defense: The Respondents asserted that ASMT-10 and DRC-01 were duly served via the registered email address and uploaded on the GST portal. They further noted that the final order and DRC-07 were communicated, and a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 was available.
Disclosure: The petitioner stated in the writ that no alternate or efficacious remedy existed.

Decision

Misleading Statements: The court held that the petitioner made a misleading statement regarding the lack of an alternative remedy; the existence of the Section 107 appeal should have been disclosed and its bypass justified.
Disputed Facts: Allegations regarding the non-service of notices and the breach of natural justice involved “seriously disputed facts” that cannot be examined under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226.
Limitation and Delay: Even if the petitioner claimed belated knowledge, no cogent explanation was provided for the delay, and mere assertions cannot be used to extend the statutory limitation for an appeal.
Dismissal: The court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, emphasizing that the alternative statutory remedy could not be bypassed based on unsupported factual pleas.
Outcome: The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal. Decided in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

Disclosure of Remedy: Petitioners must approach the High Court with clean hands; failing to disclose the availability of a statutory appeal can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition.
Writ vs. Appeal: High Courts are reluctant to entertain writs under Article 226 when the dispute centers on factual disagreements (e.g., “Was the email actually sent/received?”) which are better suited for appellate fact-finding.
Portal Service Validity: Uploading notices on the GST portal and sending them to the registered email are generally considered valid modes of service; disputing these requires substantial evidence rather than bald assertions.
Extraordinary Jurisdiction: The existence of a “natural justice” claim does not automatically entitle a party to bypass the statutory appeal process, especially when the facts supporting that claim are contested by the Department.

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Sri Sarang Steel

State of Jharkhand^*

M.S. Sonak, CJ.
and Rajesh Shankar, J.

W.P. (T) No. 7338 of 2025

MARCH 16, 2026

Mrs. Shweta Suman, Miss. Amrita Sinha and Miss. Pragunee Kashyap, Advs. for the Petitioner. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges adjudication order dated 30.12.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. In paragraph 30, the petitioner has made a statement that it has no alternate or equally efficacious remedy other than to move before this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This is because the impugned order is ex parte.

4. We must say that this statement is completely misleading, and on this ground itself, this petition deserves to be dismissed. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Therefore, it was a duty of the petitioner to disclose that the order is appealable. After such a disclosure, the petitioner could have always pleaded why, according to the petitioner, the practice of relegating the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy ought to be bypassed. However, the petitioner was not justified in making a misleading statement that no alternative or efficacious remedy was available in the matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice before the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was made. She also contended that no notice granting the petitioner the opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the JGST Act was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was made. She contended that service of a show cause notice or a notice giving opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), apart from being a statutory requirement, is one of the facets of observance with the principles of natural Justice and fair play. She submitted that in a case where a violation of natural justice is established, the practice of relegating the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy is usually not insisted upon.

6. In this case, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit, there is a clear statement that a notice in form ASMT 10 under Rule 99 (1) of the JGST Rules 2017 vide Reference No. 3260 dated 08.09.2023 was served upon the petitioner through registered e-mail address, giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause and explain the discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed that if no explanation is received by the aforesaid date, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing further to say in the matter and the case would proceed in accordance with law.

7. The counter also states that a detailed show cause notice in DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the said Act, vide Reference No. 3182, dated 24.11.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was uploaded on the GSTN Portal and sent to the petitioner’s e-mail. The counter affidavit states that despite proper service of the show cause notice, the petitioner did not bother to submit any written/oral explanation or produce any supportive document. The counter also states that the order under Section 73(9) and subsequently issued GST DRC-07 was communicated to the petitioner to the GST Portal.

8. The petitioner, however, disputes everything and states that no intimation or show cause notice was ever received by the petitioner. The petitioner also states that it had no knowledge of the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, and such knowledge was acquired only in the last week of July 2025 upon receipt of a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025.

9. Apart from the fact that the pleadings in the writ petition about the non-service of notices are not very clear, we think that the issue of service of notices is a seriously disputed question of fact. Such disputed questions of fact cannot ordinarily be resolved by invoking this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents, on oath, stated that the notices were served at the registered e-mail addresses, and that the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner simply denies all this in a petition which is instituted on 11^th October 2025.

10. Even if we assume that the statement in paragraph 12 that the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025, based upon which the petitioner made applications to obtain a peace of orders/order sheets, still, there is hardly any explanation for the delay in instituting this writ petition.

11. Further, if it is indeed the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order and came to know about the order much later, then it will be open to the petitioner to appeal the said order from the alleged date of obtaining knowledge and copies of the order. But again, this is a seriously disputed question of fact which the petitioner will have to establish. A mere statement about belated knowledge can never be sufficient for extending the period of limitation.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Asstt. Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. GSTL 305 (SC)/(2020) 19 SCC 681 , to submit that the High Courts should not allow the petitioner to bypass mechanisms provided under the statute. He submitted that when a complete mechanism is provided under the Act for challenging assessment orders, that mechanism alone must be followed, and the writ petition is not maintainable to defeat the statutory scheme.

13. There are several decisions that take the view that the alternative remedy should not be easily bypassed on a disputed allegation of a failure of natural justice. In this case, as noted earlier, the petitioner has firstly made a misleading statement in this petition. In any event, the allegations about failure of natural justice would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot normally be undertaken under our summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. Accordingly, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case to exercise our discretion and allow the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedies available. Entertaining such a petition would not be consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), as relied upon by Mr Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

15. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. However, we grant the petitioner liberty to appeal the impugned order in accordance with the law. All contentions of all parties in this regard are left open to be decided by the appellate authority.

16. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.

17. No costs.